23 June 2010

BBC shows signs of impartiality on climate catastrophism!

Good heavens! Cor blimey! Knock me down with a feather! The Bitchy Boys Club news site has conspicuously failed to present a one-sided report on the latest climate catastrophist libel of those who question their religion!

Some Stamford academic has published an article in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The author's somewhat less than amazing finding is that:

Some 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet.

. . . researchers who were convinced of the human impact on climate change had published twice as many papers as their sceptical counterparts, and were cited in other people's research two to three times more often.

Not on the face of it surprising, given that catastrophism has been the surest funding magnet for climate scientists for the last 20 years and that, as revealed in the leaked emails from the catastrophist coven at East Anglia University, they have used all means short of murder to keep anyone from publishing contrary views.

The BBC could normally be expected to go to town on this 'further evidence' that climate catastrophism is 'proven science' commanding a 'scientific consensus'. So it was with rather astonished pleasure that I read the corporation's balanced analysis of the article in question, which ends with the following:

"There is a core of assertions, dealing with the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature and sea level, which enjoy general agreement," Professor von Storch from the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg told BBC News.

"While others, for instance, related to the Himalaya glaciers, the changing tropical storms and their damages or the fate of Greenland, are heavy contested. It's typical of this broad-brush study to make such wide ranging claims similar to the infamous 'the debate is over'."

Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, from the University of Hull, UK, added: "Who judges expertise and prominence? It looks to me that the authors belong to an IPCC supporting group that must count as believers and belong to the beneficiaries of the man-made warming scare."